Dog killed and mutilated in its own garden by a pack of hunting dogs

Dubl07

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Totally different team involved and the Kilruddery incident was different in that it was in the middle of hunt country with the landowner walking her dog around having invited the hunt through the place at that exact time.

The weekend was a completely different scenario.

Same result. Dead pet. Traumatised family.

Invited or permitted? Few landowners go to lengths to invite hunts. Colour me sceptical on that front. They trample crops and scare animals. Why would any landowner invite them onto their land?

Lu Tze

dodderangler wrote: »

Any amount of dogs whether same breed or not is a pack and once together the dominance is formed and old instincts become stronger so most if not all animals are classed as prey to them. Wolves do it to coyotes and foxes and will not always eat them but it's a territorial thing. IMO these hounds seen this dog as either prey or looking to take over its territory. Not saying it's at all right but an animal is what it is

Indeed so now that we know this, why don't we gather up a big pack of dogs, which we cannot control (as it is their nature to hunt weaker prey in packs) and traipse/trespass through other peoples land putting their livestock and pets at risk of mauling and potential death.

Yes, that would be the obvious course of action once you understood the pack mentality. And for good measure we wont do a letter drop or anything to say we will be doing this in the area.

Edit - At the very least depending on how exactly this happened, whoever should have been in control of the hunt should never be allowed lead a hunt again, or if it was purely an overpowering urge in the animals, that pack should never hunt again. Possibly both if the main cause cannot be ascertained

freedominacup

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Totally different team involved and the Kilruddery incident was different in that it was in the middle of hunt country with the landowner walking her dog around having invited the hunt through the place at that exact time.

The weekend was a completely different scenario.

The cheek of her, imagine walking her dog on her own property, whatever next?:rolleyes:

Imhof Tank

Dubl07 wrote: »

Same result. Dead pet. Traumatised family.

Invited or permitted? Few landowners go to lengths to invite hunts. Colour me sceptical on that front. They trample crops and scare animals. Why would any landowner invite them onto their land?

That land"owner" did invite the hunt onto the estate - or he used to anyway.

Why: 100 years + association with the hunt, Kilruddery House - birthplace of the Bray Harriers.

Anyway, this is going off topic - there is no need for a Justice for Lord Meath Facebook campaign lads.

fits

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Anyway, this is going off topic - there is no need for a Justice for Lord Meath Facebook campaign lads.

I dunno I would kinda like to see it

Sulla Felix

DBB wrote: »

To simply excuse this, it similar incidents as an "unfortunate consequence", or "one of those things", just is not good enough.
Every vaguely-risky activity is subject to a Risk Assessment, which is meant to be carried out by someone trained to do so. A Risk Assessment allows for measures and protocols to be developed in order to reduce the risks.
In the case of a hunt, one simple but critical measure includes informing the residents of an area to keep their vulnerable animals in. Just in case.
According to reports of this incident, this was not done, and a little dog and her family paid the price.
Yes, dogs will be dogs, but this is in no way an acceptable excuse to allow them to do what they want.

You're assuming things that aren't in my post. Try not to do that, thanks.

Imhof Tank

Snickers Man wrote: »

As I have already said

The "evidence" that I have seen to date remains unconvincing.

http://www.wicklownews.net/thousands-support-justice-for-isabelle-campaign/

DBB

Sulla Felix wrote: »

You're assuming things that aren't in my post. Try not to do that, thanks.

Jayney. What a delightful post!
What you said in your post was that keeping dogs brings with it maulings as a "foreseeable consequence", a "statistical certainty because no ones (sic) control of an animal is perfect". Your exact words :-)

Because this seemed to me to clearly be a rather shoulder-shrugging language to describe why we should just accept that maulings happen (your language, not mine ;-)), but more importantly because this is a discussion forum, I suggested that there were ways of reducing your perceived "statistical certainty".

Now, perhaps I picked up what you said incorrectly, but I would be able to take you correcting me with some degree of seriousness if you had just expressed this correction in a polite and respectful way. Otherwise I might just have to cast off your posts as those reminiscent of a petulant child.

gozunda

There appears to be a huge amount of misinformation and presumption in this thread about a number of issues.

For the poster that mentioned Trespass
- the law of animal trespass is not the same as human trespass. Animals do not understand human property rights. I would suggest anyone who is interested look it up.

In relation to the humans who entered onto the property - I believe they did so in an attempt to stay the hounds - I'm sure no one would say that they should not have done so.

As for the hounds out of control - animals including domestic dogs do unfortunately exhibit such behaviour occasionally - see incidences of pack behaviour when dogs roam and attack sheep. It happens but we don't start a hullabaloo to round up all potential dog owners whose dogs may roam at some stage and start instigating new and quite bizarre and radical reactions

angelfire9

gozunda wrote: »

There appears to be a huge amount of misinformation and presumption in this thread about a number of issues.

For the poster that mentioned Trespass
- the law of animal trespass is not the same as human trespass. Animals do not understand human property rights. I would suggest anyone who is interested look it up.

In relation to the humans who entered onto the property - I believe they did so in an attempt to stay the hounds - I'm sure no one would say that they should not have done so.

As for the hounds out of control - animals including domestic dogs do unfortunately exhibit such behaviour occasionally - see incidences of pack behaviour when dogs roam and attack sheep. It happens but we don't start a hullabaloo to round up all potential dog owners whose dogs may roam at some stage and start instigating new and quite bizarre and radical reactions

I would beg to differ as regards the issue of tresspass of the animals
(There was undoubtedly tresspass by horses and riders in an attempt to rein in the hounds)
In relation to the tresspass if the hounds the LRC (law reform commission) produced a paper on this very issue

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rCivilLiabilityForAnimals.htm

I would refer you also the the case stated law in Rylands v Fletcher a case from the UK in the late 1800's which is still a valid judgement in matters of strict liability

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v_Fletcher

As I'm fairly sure legal discussions are against the forum charter I will leave it at that but feel free to PM me its been awhile since I had to actively engage in discussions on Tort

freedominacup

gozunda wrote: »

There appears to be a huge amount of misinformation and presumption in this thread about a number of issues.

For the poster that mentioned Trespass
- the law of animal trespass is not the same as human trespass. Animals do not understand human property rights. I would suggest anyone who is interested look it up.

In relation to the humans who entered onto the property - I believe they did so in an attempt to stay the hounds - I'm sure no one would say that they should not have done so.

As for the hounds out of control - animals including domestic dogs do unfortunately exhibit such behaviour occasionally - see incidences of pack behaviour when dogs roam and attack sheep. It happens but we don't start a hullabaloo to round up all potential dog owners whose dogs may roam at some stage and start instigating new and quite bizarre and radical reactions

You're absolutely right as a landowner if I find you trespassing I'm not allowed to shoot you, though that's a bit more of a grey area lately, however a dog has exactly the same status as a rabbit or a crow if found trespassing and around here would be treated as such, i.e. it's perfectly acceptable to shoot them.

fits

angelfire9 wrote: »

I(There was undoubtedly tresspass by horses and riders in an attempt to rein in the hounds)

So according to this interpretation, the whips should have stayed out of the grounds and let the hounds on with it?

Macy0161

gozunda wrote: »

As for the hounds out of control - animals including domestic dogs do unfortunately exhibit such behaviour occasionally - see incidences of pack behaviour when dogs roam and attack sheep. It happens but we don't start a hullabaloo to round up all potential dog owners whose dogs may roam at some stage and start instigating new and quite bizarre and radical reactions

There are potential legal consequences of dogs roaming and attacking sheep, if the owner can be identified, and inevitable consequences for the dog. It's an issue that does provoke national campaigns to stop it happening, and national and local coverage when it does.

As for bizarre and radical reactions. Is it expecting a pack to be undercontrol bizarre or radical? Up to now I thought it was taken as read tbh. What's the other bizarre and radical reactions - that hunts should inform the public that live in the locality that a hunt is taking place in the area, and when?

fits

In fairness Macy, there's talk of shooting hounds (maybe fair enough if they're worrying stock but not otherwise.)
there's plenty of bizarre and radical reaction on Facebook too. And im sorry but few enough are genuinely concerned about what happened this dog but are using it for their own agenda.

Macy0161

fits wrote: »

In fairness Macy, there's talk of shooting hounds (maybe fair enough if they're worrying stock but not otherwise.)

That'd be the consequence for domestic dogs carrying out such an attack. You or I might not agree with it, but it's hardly bizarre or radical.

fits wrote: »

there's plenty of bizarre and radical reaction on Facebook too. And im sorry but few enough are genuinely concerned about what happened this dog but are using it for their own agenda.

I'm not following it on facebook, so take your word for it, and I'm sure some are using it to further an anti hunt agenda - however, I think some trying to downplay the incident aren't really helping the hunting cause really.

fits

Macy0161 wrote: »

That'd be the consequence for domestic dogs carrying out such an attack. You or I might not agree with it, but it's hardly bizarre or radical.


.

As a consequence... Fine. But shooting hounds just because they followed a scent onto your land is not justified if they're not doing harm. By all means , take it up with the hunt, but its not the hounds' fault.

Macy0161

fits wrote: »

As a consequence... Fine. But shooting hounds just because they followed a scent onto your land is not justified if they're not doing harm. By all means , take it up with the hunt, but its not the hounds' fault.

I guess that attitude will be a consequence of this attack - packs of hounds can't be trusted. How close would someone in a position to do something about it be expected to let the hounds approach their animals (either livestock or pets)?

freedominacup

fits wrote: »

As a consequence... Fine. But shooting hounds just because they followed a scent onto your land is not justified if they're not doing harm. By all means , take it up with the hunt, but its not the hounds' fault.

Hounds on a livestock farm are almost by definition doing harm. I have 50+ pregnant cows and heifers out grazing this minute and will do as long as the weather holds. How close do you think I should let a pack of hounds get to them? Some knucklehead already contended on this thread that he could walk a pack of hounds down through a flock of sheep and lambs without doing any harm which only served to display his total ignorance. I suppose you would contend the same?

I would say personally that the bounds ditch is as far as I would let them come after that if I have the gun handy the hounds are in mortal danger. It's a ridiculous pursuit and should be consigned to the history books where it belongs.

fits

freedominacup wrote: »

Hounds on a livestock farm are almost by definition doing harm. I have 50+ pregnant cows and heifers out grazing this minute and will do as long as the weather holds. How close do you think I should let a pack of hounds get to them? Some knucklehead already contended on this thread that he could walk a pack of hounds down through a flock of sheep and lambs without doing any harm which only served to display his total ignorance. I suppose you would contend the same?

.

that knucklehead was me and I have seen it. They were ewes who'd had their lambs and we had farmers permission to walk through.. I also grew up on a sheep farm and am fully aware of the damage dogs can do by worrying pregnant ewes.

Avoiding stock is very important of course. I won't argue with that. But shooting hounds which are minding their own business is just plain wrong.

freedominacup

fits wrote: »

that knucklehead was me and I have seen it. They were ewes who'd had their lambs and we had farmers permission to walk through.. I also grew up on a sheep farm and am fully aware of the damage dogs can do by worrying pregnant ewes.

Avoiding stock is very important of course. I won't argue with that. But shooting hounds which are minding their own business is just plain wrong.

If they're on my property without permission they are not minding their own business. You haven't answered me as to how close you think I should let a hunt approach my pregnant stock?

fits

freedominacup wrote: »

If they're on my property without permission they are not minding their own business. You haven't answered me as to how close you think I should let a hunt approach my pregnant stock?

I don't think a hunt should go anywhere near pregnant stock.

freedominacup

fits wrote: »

I don't think a hunt should go anywhere near pregnant stock.

Well then why would they be on most livestock farms at any point during the hunting season certainly in my area? Most farms would have large numbers of pregnant sheep and cows at this time of year around here at any rate.

razorblunt

This was always going to warrant an extreme backlash, look at the dog, it's almost a glorified stuffed teddy bear. It would be (and is) sickening to think of it dying such a horrifc death and I can only imagine what the family are going through now.
It clearly was an unfortunate accident though, has the club held their hands up and taken accountability? Seeing as they're not a live prey hunting club calls for them to be closed down are a bit wide of the mark in my opinion.

fits

Do you not house the cattle? Hunts try and avoid stock as much as they can. Round us the cattle go in. A lot of hunts delayed the start of their season this year because cattle were still out with the good weather. I know you have a terrible opinion of them but a well run outfit will communicate with and work around farmers and landowners. A lot of work goes into it.

Macy0161

fits wrote: »

Do you not house the cattle? Hunts try and avoid stock as much as they can. Round us the cattle go in. A lot of hunts delayed the start of their season this year because cattle were still out with the good weather. I know you have a terrible opinion of them but a well run outfit will communicate with and work around farmers and landowners. A lot of work goes into it.

Why's it relevant whether they're housed, if the hunt has no permission to go on the land?

runawaybishop

Macy0161 wrote: »

Why's it relevant whether they're housed, if the hunt has no permission to go on the land?

Why is this relevant anyway, since the hunt route wasn't near the house and the incident happened when it was returning via a public road.

Pixie Chief

Will probably be lynched for what I'm going to say but will say it anyway. Disclaimer!! This is a terrible thing to happen to the dog and the family and can in no way be considered to be their fault. I'm not in any way suggesting that it is although what I'm going to say might sound a bit like that.

I do think that when dogs are outside in their own gardens that gates etc should be shut and the dogs safely enclosed. Leaving them outside with garden gates open leaves them vulnerable to all sorts of threats including being stolen, going out on road and being hit, attacked by other dogs etc. It also leaves them free to roam to attack other people's dogs and random passersby. I'm a foster Mom for a rescue and the number of dogs going missing, stolen, getting injured from cars or people who like that sort of thing or roaming causing problems for other people is insane. It has nothing to do with thinking that everyone should get out of the way of a hunt (because I don't) more that it is best practice. We don't rehome to homes without secure gardens for that reason.

As I have mentioned before on Boards, I am the proud owner of a huge foxhound, a spaniel cross and a lurcher and would be beyond devastated should something happen to any one of them. My JRT lady was ripped apart on our back doorstep when I was 17 by a neighbours dog. We were letting her out for a wee first thing and he was outside the door. Mom and I were destroyed. It was a long time before we got another dog and when we did, the first thing we did was secure around the house so it couldn't happen again. I don't consider that it was our fault - the other dog should have been at his own house, not ours but I have always had secure areas since both to keep my dogs from being an issue for other people and to protect them. My hearts go out to the family who must be completely gutted and far beyond upset. It is a dreadful thing to witness and deal with. But also to the people with the hounds who I'm sure are horrified at what has happened and at their involvement. Our neighbour was completely inconsolable, just couldn't believe it had happened and was so guilt ridden for so long (he was very fond of Tiny!) It is a truly dreadful tragic event and everyone involved has my sympathies and I hope that many sensible and realistic preventative measures will be taken by the hunts to prevent such a thing happening ever again.

freedominacup

fits wrote: »

Do you not house the cattle? Hunts try and avoid stock as much as they can. Round us the cattle go in. A lot of hunts delayed the start of their season this year because cattle were still out with the good weather. I know you have a terrible opinion of them but a well run outfit will communicate with and work around farmers and landowners. A lot of work goes into it.

Yes we do house them but when depends on the year and quite often there would be some stock on the land here everyday of the year. At the mo' the way things are looking we will have substantial numbers out here on tillage land until Christmas week and we would expect to turn out spring calving cows as they calve from mid-Jan on. I don't see any reason why i have to waste any time watching for hunts on top of everything else that can cause me a problem because I have stock out.

Hunts do in their hole try to avoid stock as much as they can. Less than two hours ago I watched a huntsman decide to bring a pack into a farm (my farm as it happens) where the only route was past a field with 50+ pregnant cows in it and onwards then through a farm yard where 100+ cattle were housed. He didn't get past the entrance mainly because we saw the line the hunt was taking and had to go down to our entrance to stop them. In the next field was around the same number of pregnant stock belonging to a neighbour and beyond that was a section of ground with a couple of hundred ewes on it. Hunts and huntsmen in the main are pig ignorant lunatics with no regard for anyone or any animal that isn't part of their hunt. You do yourself no favours by supporting them or associating yourself with most of them.

pointer28

So, it's a hunt that doesn't actually do any hunting?

So why the hell do they even have hounds?

Why can't they just have an organised cross country ride every weekend, therefore sticking to land that they're allowed on and saving themselves the feed bill and work of looking after hounds. As well as that, they would have no more risk of something like this ever happening again whether someone's house pet or a flock of sheep.

I'm involved in the equestrian world professionally and IMO 99% of hunt followers have zero interest in hounds or hunting. If the huntsman turned up with a pack of pink poodles most of them would neither notice nor give a shi1t. All they want to do is ride their horses, which is perfectly fine with me. It's the intrusion into other peoples lives that bothers me.

fits

freedominacup wrote: »

Hunts do in their hole try to avoid stock as much as they can. Less than two hours ago I watched a huntsman decide to bring a pack into a farm (my farm as it happens) where the only route was past a field with 50+ pregnant cows in it and onwards then through a farm yard where 100+ cattle were housed. He didn't get past the entrance mainly because we saw the line the hunt was taking and had to go down to our entrance to stop them. In the next field was around the same number of pregnant stock belonging to a neighbour and beyond that was a section of ground with a couple of hundred ewes on it. Hunts and huntsmen in the main are pig ignorant lunatics with no regard for anyone or any animal that isn't part of their hunt. You do yourself no favours by supporting them or associating yourself with most of them.

Phone them up and tell them you don't want them going through.

I am afraid hunts are no different to people in general, some good, some bad, some in between the two.